Do Atheist Bow to Anthromophism?

originally posted by: Kashai
Again you seem to be contradicting what in fact is valid. You claim we have no evidence of God and I am clearly stating that there is no evidence the
Universe is Random.

Here's a quote from page 2, my SECOND POST on this topic:

Again, Atheism isn't a belief system. Other members in this thread have already shown that Atheists can believe in a variety of things,
and hold any number of positions and opinions. The only thing that universally connects Atheists as a whole, is a lack of belief in gods

So your argument that 'there's no real reason to conclude that everything we see around us is due to random chance' isn't even a position held by
all atheists.

Yet nearly 10 pages later, you're still clinging to the words that you originally spoken which have been battered to death with facts ever page
since.

Do I need to repost the Insanity quote from Einstein again?

originally posted by: Kashai
To insist that at some point in the future we will acknowledge this. We will find evidence is actually a prediction related to future
events.

No one is saying anything about predictions. I have no idea how you even came to this conclusion... Perhaps if you read this, you'll understand:

Again, you're not using what I actually hold as a position, but what you believe I hold as a position. Your definition of what you think I
believe is not accurate. It's as if you only know how to respond in False Premises.

originally posted by: Kashai
PS: The Denver Broncos are tied in overtime 17 to 17 in Monday night football against the Cincinnati Bengals and Denver is in Felid Goal Position.

Hold up everyone, looks like Kashai is going to make another post soon that's totally off topic in order to get his 'troll-side' out of his
system like he did a few pages ago. I wonder how many more troll comments he'll make before he gets banned.

Consensus based upon Quantum Mechanics, Multiple Dimension, Multiverse theory, EPR Paradox and so on...relates to theoretical disputes over things we
really understand very little of.

But there is consensus upon how to predict the weather and how to know where planets/stars/galaxies will be a million years from now and where they
were a million years ago. There is even is the issue that based upon evidence that in 2 billion years Sol will not allow life to be possible on Earth.
As well that in about 5 billion years the Andromeda Galaxy will collide with the Milky Way Galaxy.

As much as Atheist are engaged in denial nothing that is currently observed and understood acts randomly. Based upon those facts there is no real
reason that the Universe is the same.

originally posted by: Kashai
As much as Atheist are engaged in denial nothing that is currently observed and understood acts randomly. Based upon those facts there is no real
reason that the Universe is the same.

Atheism (according to the Dictionary): A disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Atheism (according to Encyclopædia Britannica): "Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false
that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects
belief in God for the following reasons ... : for an anthropomorphic God, the atheist rejects belief in God because it is false or probably
false that there is a God; for a nonanthropomorphic God ... because the concept of such a God is either meaningless, unintelligible,
contradictory, incomprehensible, or incoherent; for the God portrayed by some modern or contemporary theologians or philosophers ... because the
concept of God in question is such that it merely masks an atheistic substance—e.g., "God" is just another name for love, or ... a symbolic term for
moral ideals."

Atheism (The Encyclopedia of Philosophy): An 'atheist' is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the
rejection is the claim that 'God exists' expresses a false proposition.

Atheism (The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief. Prometheus Books): Atheism is simply the absence of belief in the gods

Atheism (Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.): "Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God"

Hmmm... Odd... I see nothing in there that says that "Atheists only believe everything in the universe is random".

I guess you'll need to read this again:

Again, you're not using what I actually hold as a position, but what you believe I hold as a position. Your definition of what you think I
believe is not accurate. It's as if you only know how to respond in False Premises.

originally posted by: Kashai
Based upon a Supreme Court Decision Atheism is a Religion and its organization is eligible for tax-exempt status.
Honestly the US is probably not the only country that treats Atheism the same way.
Are you actually clamming your opinion is superior to that of the US supreme court?

This is not an opinion. This is a fact. And yes, Facts are superior to that of the decisions made in the US Supreme Court.

The US government/law system does not dictate what a word means, only what laws are laws.

PS: I already showed alternative links to court cases where Atheism was ruled as Non-religious, that were also concluded far after your links. So,
according to your logic, that makes my citations correct.

originally posted by: Kashai
Our are you suggesting that there is a higher power that supports your position.

How does a person even come to this conclusion?

Oh right... the whole insanity thing...

originally posted by: Kashai
Given the obvious facts I would appreciate some evidence that reality results from nothing.

You have yet to provide us any 'obvious facts'. Also, if the only way you define atheism is through the US court system (which, to remind you, I
provided a more recent link to a court case where atheism is defined as non-religious), I have yet to see the court describe "Atheistic beliefs" as
"only pertaining to a randomly formed universe".

Where are you even getting this idea from.

Perhaps you need to read this again:

Again, you're not using what I actually hold as a position, but what you believe I hold as a position. Your definition of what you think I
believe is not accurate. It's as if you only know how to respond in False Premises.

originally posted by: Kashai
As far as definitions related to Atheism perhaps you should review the US Supreme Court decision.

As in reality its application is actually Law.

Much more important than what dictionaries imply.

You must be a troll. I cannot fathom someone with such a low level of intellect to even exist, let alone believe that claim is accurate.

How does a person come to the conclusion that a jurisdictional decision on the description of an English word is more accurate than the highest
regarded tool in describing words when that describes that word as something totally different?

The US doesn't control the world's definitions. Humanity as a collective group does. Laws of any specific country mean absolutely nothing to facts.

The only fact that changed is that Secular Humanism (not even atheism specifically) was treated as a religion one one single prison (not even the
entire nation as a whole).

Your logic is beyond flawed.

originally posted by: Kashai
As in dictionary definitions do not result in a tax-exempt status.

And you have yet to provide any evidence that nothing exist while I have provided evidence that there is nothing random based upon current
understanding.

Logic dictates that you are wrong unless you can provide any evidence that a negative can be proven.

Or that rationally and in relation to what is known today in FACT can be understood as the result of a random event.

It is irrelevant that lower courts suggest otherwise as the activity of Atheist Organization has been to secure tax-exempt status.

In effect Atheist are admitting Atheism is a religion.

Obviously they could refuse such a status upon grounds of principle and in some cases that has occurred. But in reality the case is that Atheist
organization, are filing law suits in order to gain this status as offered by me in this thread.

Any such position that Atheism is not a religion would in effect be negated do to a Supreme court decision. And as this is the highest power in what
is clearly a materialist perspective. Atheism is a Religion in every sense related to authority given there is no God.

Atheism as such is defined as a Religion and while you argue in opposition your qualification to state otherwise is secondary unless you happen to be
a Supreme court judge.

Meteorologist use computer programs that specifically apply Chaos theory to predict the weather, throughout the world.

The errors are the result of not understanding all the parameters but there is order and it is obviously not random.

Again neither is Pi.

Multiverse theory resulted from a problem in Chemistry not Physics at allowed for a better understanding of how chemicals function. It also allows for
an infinite number of realities that are interconnected at the subatomic structure. As well as the conclusion that within our particular perspective
or frame of such a structure there are also parallel and exacting perspectives are ours.

Consider that as such we are akin to a facet in a diamond upon a quantum scale.

originally posted by: Kashai
And you have yet to provide any evidence that nothing exist while I have provided evidence that there is nothing random based upon current
understanding.

Wow... I cannot believe you're still trying to make an argument out of this.

And you have yet to provide any evidence that nothing exist
~ I never claimed that nothing existed

I have provided evidence that there is nothing random based upon current understanding.
~ You provided a response, which was refuted and shown to be inaccurate, which you then didn't even acknowledge. So no, you haven't provided evidence
for anything
~ Also, I am not claiming that everything is based on random events, so why are you even arguing this point?

originally posted by: Kashai
Logic dictates that you are wrong unless you can provide any evidence that a negative can be proven.

If you were using any logic at all, you would realize that I have never claimed a negative, and I have also shown that that is not my position
(probably a good 20+ times now).

Why are you even arguing this?

originally posted by: Kashai
It is irrelevant that lower courts suggest otherwise as the activity of Atheist Organization has been to secure tax-exempt status.

I'm sure some minor groups of Atheists do want tax-exempt status. You do realize that being "Tax Exempt" does not mean you are a religion.

Do I really need to bring a dictionary in again to teach you what religion really means?

In some countries (Including the United states) gives tax exemption to a number of things:

~ Specific Individuals can get tax exemption, such as: Veterans, clergymen, and even some taxpayers with children

~ Certain classes of income can qualify for tax exemption, such as: Income earned outside the taxing jurisdiction, such exclusions may be limited in
amount. Interest income earned from subsidiary jurisdictions. Income consisting of compensation for loss. The value of property inherited or acquired
by gift

~ Certain types of property can get tax exemption, such as: Property used in manufacture of other goods (which goods may ultimately be taxable).
Property used by a tax exempt or other parties for a charitable or other not for profit purpose. Property considered a necessity of life, often
exempted from sales taxes in the United States. Personal residence of the taxpayer, often subject to specific monetary limitations

The condition to get tax exemption isn't "Be religious"

originally posted by: Kashai
But in reality the case is that Atheist organization, are filing law suits in order to gain this status as offered by me in this thread.

Yet you have no idea what humanity uses to define words.

Yet you have no response to my court cases, that are more recent, and that completely go against your court cases.

originally posted by: Kashai
Any such position that Atheism is not a religion would in effect be negated do to a Supreme court decision.

In a specific jurisdiction, sure. I'm not denying that.

What you're arguing, though, is that somehow a prison court case conclusion applies to the global definition of Atheism. This notion is insanity at
it's finest.

originally posted by: KashaiAtheism is a Religion in every sense related to authority given there is no God.

Until you look at the collective definition derived from the totality of humanity, which conclusively defines Atheism as Non-Religious.

originally posted by: Kashai
Atheism as such is defined as a Religion and while you argue in opposition your qualification to state otherwise is secondary unless you happen to be
a Supreme court judge.

I'm not arguing it through my qualifications, I'm citing the sources that conclusively prove the definition at a global scale.

Also, I did already play your little game on "the supreme court rules" by posting my own more recent court cases which state that Atheism is
not a Religion. So, According to your ridiculous logic, I am still right....

Maybe I wasn't clear in what I have asked of you so I will try again. You claimed that "we understand nothing is random" so I asked who you were
referring to as "we" and if there is a scientific consensus backing up your claim. You answered me by listing some hypothesis which didn't answer my
question at all.

I asked why I should believe you so now you give me a brief and significantly incorrect explanation of a few of those hypothesis.

Edward Lorenz, in full Edward Norton Lorenz (born May 23, 1917, West Hartford, Conn., U.S.—died April 16, 2008, Cambridge, Mass.), American
meteorologist and discoverer of the underlying mechanism of deterministic chaos, one of the principles of complexity.

After receiving degrees from Dartmouth College and Harvard University in mathematics, Lorenz turned to weather forecasting in 1942 with the U.S. Army
Air Corps. After World War II he became a researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he earned a master’s degree (1943) and
doctorate in meteorology (1948) and stayed on as a professor. He later served as the head of the meteorology department.

In the early 1960s Lorenz discovered that the weather exhibits a nonlinear phenomenon known as sensitive dependence on initial conditions (see chaos
theory). He constructed a weather model showing that almost any two nearby starting points, indicating the current weather, will quickly diverge
trajectories and will quite frequently end up in different “lobes,” which correspond to calm or stormy weather. He explained this phenomenon,
which makes long-range weather forecasting impossible, to the public as the “butterfly effect”: in China a butterfly flaps its wings, leading to
unpredictable changes in U.S. weather a few days later. For his groundbreaking work (his findings were published in 1963 in a paper entitled
“Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow”), Lorenz shared the 1983 Crafoord Prize of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and was awarded the 1991 Kyoto
Prize.

If you understood the subject matter you would know that this bit about Lorenz actually disputes your assertions. And copy and pasting a biography
does not demonstrate a scientific consensus of a particular model.

If you are not capable of understanding that definition of law clearly supersede dictionary definitions due to the consequence of such rulings.

You would understand that in time such as what is in the dictionaries will change.

As it always has in history.

As far as the rest of you comments.

1. Atheism

‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God. I shall here assume that the God in question is that of a
sophisticated monotheism. The tribal gods of the early inhabitants of Palestine are of little or no philosophical interest. They were essentially
finite beings, and the god of one tribe or collection of tribes was regarded as good in that it enabled victory in war against tribes with less
powerful gods. Similarly the Greek and Roman gods were more like mythical heroes and heroines than like the omnipotent, omniscient and good God
postulated in mediaeval and modern philosophy. As the Romans used the word, ‘atheist’ could be used to refer to theists of another religion,
notably the Christians, and so merely to signify disbelief in their own mythical heroes.

The word ‘theism’ exhibits family resemblance in another direction. For example should a pantheist call herself an atheist? Or again should belief
in Plato's Form of the Good or in John Leslie's idea of God as an abstract principle that brings value into existence count as theism (Leslie 1979)?
Let us consider pantheism.

At its simplest, pantheism can be ontologically indistinguishable from atheism. Such a pantheism would be belief in nothing beyond the physical
universe, but associated with emotions of wonder and awe similar to those that we find in religious belief. I shall not consider this as theism.
Probably the theologian Paul Tillich was a pantheist in little more than this minimal sense and his characterising God as the ground of being has no
clear meaning. The unanswerable question ‘Why is there anything at all?’ may give us mystical or at any rate dizzy feelings but such feelings do
not differentiate the pantheist from the atheist. However there are stronger forms of pantheism which do differentiate the pantheist from the atheist
(Levine, 1994). For example the pantheist may think that the universe as a whole has strongly emergent and also mind-like qualities. Not emergent
merely in the weak sense that a radio receiver's ability to receive signals from distant stations might be said to be emergent because it is not a
mere jumble of components (Smart 1981). The components have to be wired together in a certain way, and indeed the workings of the individual
components can be explained by the laws of physics. Contrast this with a concept of emergence that I shall call ‘strong emergence’. C. D. Broad in
his Scientific Thought (Broad 1923) held that the chemical properties of common salt could not even in principle be deduced from those of sodium and
chlorine separately, at the very time at which the quantum theory of the chemical bond was beginning to be developed. Though the mind has seemed to
some to be strongly emergent from its physical basis, it can be argued that developments in the philosophy of mind, cognitive science and neuroscience
favour weak emergence only.

One strong form of pantheism ascribes mental properties to the cosmos. If the weak sense of emergence was adopted we would be faced with the question
of whether the universe looks like a giant brain. Patently it does not. Samuel Alexander asserted, rather than argued, that mentality strongly emerged
from space-time, and then that at some future time there will emerge a new and at present hardly imaginable level which he called ‘deity’
(Alexander 1927). It is hard to tell whether such an implausible metaphysics should be classified as as pantheism or as theism. Certainly such a deity
would not be the infinite creator God of orthodox theism. A. N. Whitehead, too, had a theory of an emergent deity, though with affinities to
Platonism, which he saw as the realm of potentiality and therefore he connected the atemporal with the contingent temporal deity (Whitehead 1929).
Such views will not deliver, however implausibly, more than a finite deity, not the God of core theism. God would be just one more thing in the
universe, however awesome and admirable.

The weak form of pantheism accepts that the physical universe is all and eschews strong emergence. Sometimes the weak form of pantheism is
rhetorically disguised as theism, with God characterised as ‘absolute depth’ or some equally baffling expression, as by Paul Tillich. At any rate,
whether or not we accept pantheism as a sort of theism, what we mean by ‘atheism’ will vary according to what in the dialectical situation we
count as theism.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.